DBM,

Watching the evening news I’m reminded of an important, and all too ignored, point in the elite “mainstream” media.

The president enjoys total party control of the House and the Senate and, still, he’s unable to pass the bulk of his domestic policy agenda.  Particularly his flavor of health-care reform.

It’s not about Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Hannity and O’Riely.  It’s not about the republicans in office today.  The president could get his agenda passed yesterday if the majority of constituents of his own party supported his agenda. No?

Where do you see the majority supporting his agenda?

Welcome back, DBM. Are you well again?

First let me say that I rarely watch Glenn Beck’s television program. From his radio show, however, I think his point on abortion isn’t in regards to current “open to the public” legislation but, rather, about the legions of progressives who are upset over federally funded abortions exclusion from current legislation.

Are you certain Beck was discussing current proposed legislation? Or was he speaking in regards to the “progressive” position on funding abortions?

-

“American citizens poll in favour of publically funded health care”

-When polling Americans about healthcare, there are ways to get two very different answers to the same question. If you ask people “should everyone be required to have healthcare?” the answer comes back 67% yes, 27% no. But, when the question is rephrased to “should we require everybody to carry insurance, or face a federal penalty?” it flips and 64% say no, and 28% yes.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll only 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

DBM- Are you perhaps watching Keith Olbermann? The reason I ask is this: Olbermann loves to report that the majority of Americans (70% according to Keith) are in favor of “universal health car”. <—this is a blatant lie.

The 70% figure comes from polling the generic question; “do you favor health care reform?” NOT the question of “do you favor government run or mandated (universal) healthcare. When asked about single payer, or universal healthcare, the numbers drop DRAMATICALLY.

There is no way MSNBC or Olbermann can read the poll numbers, especially the internals, and come up with the 70% figure. It’s simply impossible. It’s an outright lie!

-

The longer President Obama waits to make a decision on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, the more voter support for that war appears to be ebbing away.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that U.S. voters are almost evenly divided now over whether it is possible for the United States to win the war in Afghanistan. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say yes that victory is still possible, but 36% disagree and say it is not. One-in-four voters (25%) are not sure.

DBM, November 23 at 6:26 am

Welcome back and I hope you have a speedy recovery.

I would warn you that watching Beck is a potentially dangerous thing as you might pop your stitches.

Ok,  I’m back sort of ... and with a some time to do things which I normally don’t have (I’m recovering from unexpected surgery).  So I thought I’d do something radical and do something on-topic.  I watched the Glenn Beck Show yesterday.

It was no special show, just an interview with a same-thinking author.  I’m sorry Go Right, I can watch a whole lot other news and talk discussions and not see nearly as many lies as came through in this small discussion.  I say “small” because, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I find Fox hard to watch with all the interruptions for station adverts, foreshadowing and thinly veiled product endorsements called “News Extra”.

But let’s keep to the observed facts.  The discussion was along the lines of “people see us as radical right wingers ... but that is only because the nature of public discussion has suddenly moved abruptly left so that mainstream ideas are labelled radical ... we are the mainstream and oh so under attack.”  Now, I’ve had a day to forget but let’s see what statements or innuendoes I can recall that were blatantly untrue:

  * “I’m not against Health Reform but I don’t see why I should be forced to pay through Federal tax dollars for abortions” ... in particular the case of a fetus of 8 and 1/2 months “being stabbed through the head with a spike” was described in gory detail. 
  (The lie:  Abortion is not covered in any of the reform proposals because they are seeking bipartisan approval and any Family Planning funding - let alone late term abortion - is not up for discussion.  Clearly, anyone only watching this source would think that they had to be against Health Reform to be against late term abortion.)

  * Glenn’s marvelous chalkboard talk showed that the “window of acceptable discussion” had moved over time from where it started a generation ago to some bizarre position most people don’t support.  His example was that Government Health Care used to cover “widows & orphans” leaving everyone else to work for what they get.  Now the acceptable position includes government support for anyone choosing not to have insurance, funding abortions and then Glenn grandiosely wrote in “ILLEGALS” in capital letters.
    (The lie:  Again this misrepresents the proposals for reform, none of which include support for any of these things).

  * The overall presumption that the American people have been left way to the right of acceptable policy options.
    (The lie:  American citizens poll in favour of publically funded health care, ending or at least extricating the U.S. from the Iraq and Afghan wars, applying rigorous oversight of the financial sector and greater gun control measures.  They also poll in favour of heavy restrictions on abortion and religious rights.  As the latter are sacrosanct current policy while the former are not even being considered, I fail to see how the conversation has moved left of the mainstream.

Hey, maybe I’ll do some more homework on another Fox Show, but I’ll record it so I can FFwd the infommercials.  What would you recommend?

Nice retort, Manchild…..LMAO

When substance is not available throw in the personal attacks…..LOL

It’s the ENTIRE reason you are the ONLY one on TruthDig I talk to as I do.

Go Right Young Man, November 17 at 11:19 am

It isnt my fault you are an idiot, stop blaming me. Your parents were obviously first cousins.

Manchild,

Try re-reading my post just days after Maj. Hasan gunned down a couple dozen people.

Now who’s being completely dishonest? LMAO…..

I ask this sincerely: Why do you go out of your way to appear to be an idiot? It’s useless to everyone!

Go Right Young Man, November 17 at 1:41 am #

The evidence I found two days after the Ft. Hood shootings was overwhelming.

**********************
Apparently so overwhelming that it cannot be shared with anyone…...

The evidence I found two days after the Ft. Hood shootings was overwhelming. Clearly Major Hasan was practicing an extremely radical, and deadly, form of fundamental Islam

Will Manchild finally admit he completely missed the mark on this one? Will he man-up and admit he knew little on the subject and, others, yes like myself, may know a great deal more about researching current events?

I doubt it. This is one very small individual.

DBM,

This is what conservatives see 365 days a year. We see it in all the elite media while the progressive set can’t stand, with true seething hatred, FOX News for it’s particular brand of bias. Fox News stands quite alone (80% of journalists and editors are self described democrats).

Most progressives fail to recognize the daily bias, I think, because they agree with it. To the progressive set this Newsweek cover simply represents “the truth”. Fully ignoring that nearly half the country will disagree.

-

Newsweek Photo of Palin Shows Media Bias and Sexism - David Brody, CBN

NOTE: TD won’t allow me to post a link to the Newsweek cover.—“Denied access”. “black listed item found”.

I’ve never had this happen before.

“It is rare, but not unheard of, for a president’s personal lawyer to become his White House counsel. Harriett Miers became counselor to then-President George W. Bush after having been his private lawyer. And Alberto Gonzales, another Bush counsel, had also advised Bush privately.”

Bauer to bring political edge to White House counsel’s office
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111302143.html?hpid=topnews

Dunn is sooo pathetic here, attempting to co-opt Jon Stewart into the White House horse-puckey.

Anita Dunn Takes Parting Shot At Fox, Hannity And Beck
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/dunn-takes-parting-shot-a_n_357202.html

“Elsewhere in her remarks, Dunn acknowledged that her decision to go after Fox News was not an example of her “going rogue.” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and perhaps even the president himself gave her the green light.”

It seems Manchild is upset that I failed to wait for Keith Olbermann to tell me what to think, how to feel or do my own research.

ardee, November 10 at 8:08 am #

Sane people await any proof of religion playing a part in this tragedy. Assholes jump at the chance to denigrate something they have no clue about.

“President Obama will give an interview to Fox News’ Major Garrett, Drudge reports.

“The interview will take place in China next week and comes just one day after it was reported that Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn, the so-called general in the administration’s war against Fox News, will be stepping down.”

Obama to give interview to Fox News
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/obama-to-give-interview-t_n_354457.html

@CT,

It seems Manchild is upset that I failed to wait for Keith Olbermann to tell me what to think, how to feel or do my own research.

In light of his own knowledge that he was 100% wrong concerning…LMAO…lol….wait….LMAO… wait….I’m sorry…LMAO…wait….the Taliban offer to hand bin Laden over to Bush…LMAO…he still maintains total ignorance.

It just doesn’t get any more idiotic than that. Or does it? We’ll see….LMAO

Go Right Young Man writes:
“The elite media is quite busy downplaying the Fort Hood shooter’s religion.”

ardee writes:
“Sane people await any proof of religion playing a part in this tragedy.”

What a difference a day makes! A few strategic intelligence leaks, and there it all is, and now the media won’t shut up about it—Dr. Hasan WARNED the military of “adverse events”, emailed all the wrong people, begged to leave the military ... and indeed the military was sending him to Afghanistan, where he could become an unremarked hero casualty.

Presumably it’s Obama’s Muslim past and parentage that make the media and the military so nasty-nice about it all, and so slow off the dime. (We probably can anticipate, meanwhile, that the Obamas will finally “find” a DC church to attend, long about next Sunday ... )

Meanwhile, if the hijacked Democrats get away with a medical-insurance draft, can a military draft be far in the future? Youngsters will do well to position themselves as converts to Islam, the better to achieve conscientious objector status when that happy day rolls around.

Manchild,

You never fail me…lol

You have, once again, missed the entire point. LMAO

Sane people await any proof of religion playing a part in this tragedy. Assholes jump at the chance to denigrate something they have no clue about.

@CT,

The elite media is quite busy downplaying the Fort Hood shooter’s religion. Just imagine if an O’Reilly, Beck or Goldberg book was found in his home or, God forbid, there was a talk station pre-set on his car radio or he once knew a guy who had a cousin who attended a tea party.  There would be endless, mindless, hourly speculation and convoluted banner headlines about [how] the evil right-wing is sowing hatred and inspiring death.

The elite are careful not to jump to any conclusions in this case, especially when they’re politically incorrect conclusions.  But they’d jump to conclusions, wouldn’t they, if a white guy with a crew cut and overalls from the rural south walked into a local NAACP office and shot up the place.  They’d conclude the guy was a racist.  And they’d almost certainly be right.  With the Fort Hood story there was sound reason to suspect the killer’s religion played a part in the massacre, and all we got was mind numbing drivel about how stressed out soldiers are these days.

Go Right Young Man, November 9 at 2:26 pm #

This schoolyard rift with you is great fun, Manchild.

My goodness, why do you so readily admit you approach this forum as a schoolchild? Not that you would have fooled anyone for very long anyway, but I appreciate the honest admission of childishness.

That you may very well be the only person in the western world who has “no knowledge” of the Taliban’s offer seems a foolish stance, especially when the search engines bring one chapter and verse on the subject.

I would not seek to keep you from your self incriminations…..

This schoolyard rift with you is great fun, Manchild. Your lack of understanding on how the world actually works makes it easy for me (too much Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore and Hugo Chavez envy is my guess). Too easy in fact. I’m sincerely beginning to feel ashamed of myself for so openly ridiculing the disadvantaged.

I would be genuinely impressed if you were able, just once, to refute anything I’ve written.

-

The Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to Bush.. LMAO….LOL…..LOL…..LOL

I’m sorry I can’t help myself where you’re concerned. That one alone is gut splitting hilarious. I am absolutely convinced that you are now well aware of your mistake on that one but, you seem completely incapable of being adult enough to admit it…....LMAO

Please keep it coming. You’ve been terrific fun for me.

Go Right Young Man, November 9 at 9:48 am

If you are wondering whether I come at the behest of the RNC why not turn your head and ask?

Better yet, why not remove your head from your ass and post something of a political nature so we can all laugh and refute?

I’m still leaning toward the idea that Manchild may have been sent here at the behest of the RNC to make progressives appear small and bigoted.

I do not believe all progressives suffer the same inability to comprehend the written word. Most progressives hold the innate ability to differentiate between what is actually written vs the imagination.

It’s possible that Manchild is so full of hatred, so bigoted and self involved, so enthralled with his own self that he’s incapable of grasping others points of view.

I don’t hold enough information to know what ails this individual. Something is truly amiss.

@CT, November 8 at 6:32 pm
I said what I meant and meant what I sad. You both share a contempt for the truth and for those whose opinions differ from yoru own.

ardee writes [apparently responding to Go Right Young Man]:
“You and @CT both ... “

I dunno what the political particulars for Go Right Young Man may be, but ardee‘s assumption that anyone un-worshipful of Oblabla’s balls-free baloney is “right wing” is just kind of silly.

Obama, alas, is the one who’s “right wing”—and not only right wing, but a guy whose political life was launched by mobsters and corporate-kid “radicals” whose machinations did much to fold the social revolution of the sixties.

Obama’s an embarrassment inflicted on the Democrats by soldier-cult poseur John Kerry, the guy who threw the LAST election. That His henchman muzzle and nuzzle the media however they can is no surprise—it’s the Chicago Way.

bearing repetition I guess:

You and @CT both .....

You use the word “honesty” as if you had the faintest notion of its meaning. Considering that I have already posted links to the offer of the Taliban to deliver bin Laden I think you should immediately add ‘dis’ to your own self image concerning your own honesty.

I think, by the by, that I am considerably older than are you. I know I am rather far more honest. You do not seek debate, even with one as fair and evenhanded as DBM, who, I expect, will soon tire of your DIShonesty and leave the field to speak with far better than you. You seem to think that smarminess wins you points, typical right wing jackoff…..

Go Right Young Man writes:
“I am just now beginning to believe the charges I’ve been seeing repeatedly from political opponents. It does appear to me that the staff the president chose to be closest to him practice a form of the thuggish Chicago politik.”

Stalinism in the service of right-lite warm spit. At least Stalin won the war—something Oblabla’s not going to do.

DBM,

First I will say that I’ve enjoyed the discourse a good deal. I look forward to more in the future.

I’ve wanted to make one point over all others. The lies! Second to that is the matter of threat assessment.

You appear to genuinely be seeking an explanation as to why others do not see things as you do when it comes to the subject of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

I believe I can prove to any reasonable person that two (2) U.S. presidents, along with their entire respective national security apparatus, forcefully and passionately argued that Saddam Hussein was one of the highest national security priorities. That priority, I would argue, did not suddenly or miraculously diminish after Sept. 2001. - What could have or should have been done about that threat is another subject entirely.

It’s impossible to argue that two U.S. Presidents, from two political parties, spanning over a decade, argued the exact same claims but, only one lied.

Understanding this demands three things.

1. We must seek alternate explanations for “the lies”. Claiming, as many do, that “Bush lied” will not work when historians explain our present day.

2. We cannot claim two U.S. President’s, along with their national security staffs, lied to the world and not take great pains in proving the lies.

3. Why did Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, Al Gore, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others all claim Saddam Hussein was harboring banned weapons and programs several years before Bush entered office only to change their claims (Bush must have lied) AFTER no banned weapons were found?

Conclusion: Repeating the mantra that “Bush Lied” is, in my opinion, both myopic and unhelpful if we are to learn from our actions and/or mistakes.

-

Note: I have never addressed another on this forum in the manner I do with Manchild. He is truly a nasty and bitter piece of work.

Has it occurred to you that manchild has, so far, been unable to disprove even a single piece of information I’ve shared here? He simply keeps repeating the same mantra. I fail to see things as he claims so, I am must therefor be the liar.

Manchild is genuinely, and almost completely, irrational. If I didn’t know better I would think he was sent to this forum by Michael Steele and the RNC to make progressives appear small, bigoted and hateful.

I wish you a good coming week.

Go Right Young Man, November 7 at 8:31 pm #

How about an honesty test, Manchild? Up for it? smile

Why don’t you show us your exceptional nature and abilities by once again showing us how you learned of the Taliban offer to hand bin Laden to Bush.

You use the word “honesty” as if you had the faintest notion of its meaning. Considering that I have already posted links to the offer of the Taliban to deliver bin Laden I think you should immediately add ‘dis’ to your own self image concerning your own honesty.

I think, by the by, that I am considerably older than are you. I know I am rather far more honest. You do not seek debate, even with one as fair and evenhanded as DBM, who, I expect, will soon tire of your DIShonesty and leave the field to speak with far better than you. You seem to think that smarminess wins you points, typical right wing jackoff…..

I’m going to have to do a comment and run ... I will be away for the next week.  Thanks everyone for your discussion.

Go Right,  our discussion of Fox and whether they tell outright obvious lies more than most has morphed into a discussion of whether Bush lied regarding WMD in Iraq and and Al Qaeda connection.  I don’t mean to cut this discussion off without exploring how you have come to your opinions but ... (yes, I know - a “but”) ... my understanding of intelligence work is a lot like what all of us do in reading what is going on the world.  Most of us do not travel to Iraq, or sit in the same room as Bin Laden as he plots.  Instead we hear a lot of information from lots of different sources and synthesise it based on related information and frame-of-reference.  People coming from different frames-of-reference will always struggle to see things in dissonance with their points of view but we still need to think.  That is where interchanges such as ours are useful even if we don’t reach eventual agreement.

I have not had the time to look at the links in your last update but will do so when I get back.  I have no doubt that there are alternative sources I could find showing a wealth of advice that WMD were very unlikely and that a Saddam / Bin Laden connection would beggar belief.  That alternative points of view are available is the reason why intelligence is customarily presented with “degrees of confidence”.  My whole argument about the Bush administration’s reading of the intelligence is predicated on the role of the OSP.  Whether Feith’s office was a nefarious operation which cherry picked dubious and out-of-date information to mislead a credulous president or whether Bush was as keen as Cheney to be fed excuses to do what he already intended to do for his own reasons, we may never know (Cheney personally made a lot of money while Bush’s motives were probably more political).  What was clear at the time, and I’ve not seen any convincing reason to think otherwise since, is that those coming from a position of wanting to avoid war were unable to see evidence warranting an invasion of Iraq.  There were lots of starry-eyed visions of being greeted as liberators and funding the whole project out of future oil revenues.  Indeed there have been fortunes made on the war but not the oil resource kind, more the arms and ammunition kind ... and of course, the stellar services of Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater.  That, and being unable to admit error is why the occupation continues.

I fear that Obama is making a similarly poor decision about staying in Afghanistan ... time will tell.

So, thank you very much for your thoughts.  I don’t think I have changed your mind and you have not changed mine ... yet!  But the exchange has been very useful and I will look up some of the sources you have suggested.

How about an honesty test, Manchild? Up for it?

Why don’t you show us your exceptional nature and abilities by once again showing us how you learned of the Taliban offer to hand bin Laden to Bush.

LMAO….You make this far too easy for me.

Go Right Young Man, November 7 at 3:28 pm

Firstly ,your idiotic insults affect me not at all.

Secondly, your transparent attempts to distort fact fails to pass unnoticed, by the whole forum I suspect. I think it pretty neat you fail to see what a complete fool you make of yourself. As a propagandist you suck….

Gore’s point was that we should NOT INVADE Iraq..A point you found convenient to ignore in typical and fairly desperate extreme right wing fashion.

@CT,

I am just now beginning to believe the charges I’ve been seeing repeatedly from political opponents. It does appear to me that the staff the president chose to be closest to him practice a form of the thuggish Chicago politik.

I think we’re witnessing this in the White House’s treatment of those who dare to be critical. Unfortunately for the White House it won’t work. As a result of the attention FOX News ratings are continuously rising.

I understand Glenn Becks program at 5:p.m performs better than all combined cable news programming in the prime time slot.

DBM,

Manchild claims he’s in a position to confirm what I’ve written in previous posts regarding Vice President Gore’s comments on WMD in Iraq. Wherein Gore stated; Saddam Hussein’s quest for WMD has “proven impossible to deter and we should assume he will continue for as long as he is in power”.

Question: Why would Gore say such a thing after eight years of Presidential briefings? Why would he actually help President Bush lie about banned weapons in Iraq?

I’ll take the time to give credit where due. Thank you, Manchild, for unwittingly bolstering my point.

Manchild,

You have a terrific knack of missing the point entirely.

Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-fox7-2009nov07,0,7720786.story

Those still attempting to salvage some of George Bushs’ honor or reputation are wasting their time.

While the sanctions against Iraq were horrible to the people of that nation, ineffective in achieving any goals other than a geometric rise in the deaths of children, the claims made by those who supported and abetted said sanctions seems obvious ( I was, interestingly enough, at that Gore speech at the SF Commonwealth Club in 02 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html) and will attest, as will the link, that Gore spoke out against the invasion of Iraq, and quite pointedly.

But nice try anyway too far right to care about truth. It was not Clinton who invaded Iraq, it was not Clinton who abandoned
a cornered bin Laden at Tora Bora to devote himself and this nation to a vendetta to avenge the assassination attempt upon his father. That some spoke about mythic weapons of mass destruction when speaking about Hussein simply holds no water when considering that it wasnt they but Bush who violated international law and common sense, as it was Bush and Cheney who used the Constitution as so much toilet paper.

DBM,

If you find the time this weekend please see the following documents.

Who Said Iraq Had WMD?
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AaN2f0uvKtBoZGhnYnp0NTVfMTJnNm5zcHpmcQ&hl=en

Iraqi Links To Terrorism
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AaN2f0uvKtBoZGhnYnp0NTVfOTZmem16a2M5&hl=en

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AaN2f0uvKtBoZGhnYnp0NTVfMTNkMnE3d2NoZw&hl=en

1. If President Bush lied then it demands that we pay attention to who all told the world that Saddam Hussein held weapons that had been banned to him by the United Nations.

2. Why did the intelligence community believe Hussein had cooperated with global terrorists (including al Qaeda and al Qaeda types)? I have more. Much more!

3. What had President Clinton and the 105th Congress decide to do about Saddam Hussein? Why did more than 500 individuals, and the White House, decide to remove Saddam from power and work toward building a democracy in Iraq several years before President Bush ran for the presidency?

Why does the bulk of the elite media ignore it’s own reporting throughout all of the 1990’s?

If you like I can supply you with multiples of dozens of global news articles outlining Iraq’s failure to come clean, work on banned weapons and links to global terrorists.

How timely ... I just saw this:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091103_todays_us_army_and_its_ambitions/?ln

Re the Gertz story ...

If only there was a lot more reporting like this!  When I followed the link there was a photo at the top of a military funeral as well.  What possible value was gained by these deaths? 

The situation for Afghans is no better and possibly worse than before the Americans got there. 

This incredibly poor country is no credible threat to its neighbours let alone the West. 

The drug trade has grown exponentially under American rule (and it IS American rule).

The cost of this debacle would provide a Wall Street bailout every couple of years.  Or Medicare for all.  Or free university education.  Or an upgrade of infrastructure.  Or a tax break for the middle class!!

Projections are that it will take decades to “win” the war ... whatever that looks like.

No-one seems to be able to identify who exactly is to be defeated and what should take their place.

So I agree with you ... Obama needs to rally his courage and his smarts to find a politically feasible way to get out of there.  Roll on full and frank coverage of every pointless death and injury.  Let’s have full exposure of where all the money goes in these wars.

Only then will there be political wiggle room to stop the madness.

DBM,

Will respond to your latest posts this evening or coming weekend. Much to think about and do today.

-

Came across this item and wondering to myself; where are the elite, unbiased, truth-telling, non-FOX media on the total incompetence of the Obama administration concerning this Gertz piece? Where are the dozens of stories on how the Obama team got soldiers killed due to arrogance, hubris and ineptitude?

You may not have noticed, however, this is exactly the type of thing the bulk of the media would have pounced on in order to display the “failure” that was the Bush administration. The coverage would have been relentless. Everyone with an opinion would have been given voice on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, HNN, the Obama network-MSNBC and the New York and L.A. Times.

“Three intelligence reports warned that Taliban insurgents were planning an attack just days before this month’s raid on two remote military outposts in eastern Afghanistan that killed eight U.S. soldiers, but the reports were dismissed as insignificant, U.S. officials told The Washington Times. “

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/16/us-ignored-warnings-before-deadly-afghan-attack/?feat=home_cube_position1

No. I’m in no way laying blame at the feet of the White House. That would be, well, ridiculous. Yes?

... and one last comment about how “notable” Al Qaeda’s ties with Saddam’s Iraq were:

For an object lesson in the difference between “discussions” and and “operational” relationship ... refer to the CIA’s relationship with Saddam pre-Kuwait!

An important conclusion from Aslan’s Slate review (linked below):

“...al-Qaida has been spectacularly successful, thanks in no small part to the assistance of the divisive “Clash of Civilizations” mentality of our own politicians. In fact, far from debunking al-Qaida’s twisted vision of a world divided in two, the Bush administration has legitimized it through its own morally reductive “us vs. them” rhetoric.”

Sorry, you also wanted my comments on Osama Bin Laden presumably in addition to my previous comment on Al Qaeda as a whole ...

I think he’s a dangerous twisted criminal.  He may or may not be dead.  Either way he is a rallying point for people in the Arab and/or Muslim world with grievances against the West and an encouragement to violence.  His willingness to kill indiscriminately in pursuit of his enemies is evil.  I’d like to see him face a court and a prison for his crimes.

That said, even if he is still alive his stated aims of a “Caliphate” and the destruction of Israel are well beyond his means.  At the height of his influence he was less powerful than Saddam Hussein ... but more influential and, unlike Saddam, actually focused on the West as much or more than his neighbours. 

Why do you ask?

Kudos Go Right for going to the source in this collection of writings.  I agree that reading the words of enemies is a good idea.  I also believe that those in power should speak to them and listen (let’s say even without “preconditions”:-)).  There is an excellent review of the book in slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2171752/pagenum/all/).  I think it’s great that Ibrahim has gone to the trouble to translate this work and make it available.

Going off the “dust-jacket” quote from Amazon I note this comment about it: 

“... whether a hodgepodge of interviews, declarations, and exegetical arguments can be read as a sort of jihadist manifesto is debatable.”  (if you’re like me you had to look up “exegetical” which means interpretive!)

It is, however, spectacularly more sensible that the trite and ridiculous assertion that “they hate us for our freedom” (to which apparently Bin Laden himself replied “why then did we not attack Sweden?”).

I would not take this set of writings by what amount to “cult leaders” as a reason for war ... police action, “man-hunts” (of the police kind not the Predator drone type), extradition and diplomatic pressure absolutely.  But war?  Hardly more fair that bombing the U.S. because of the KKK.

BTW - Al Qaeda may wish they were “totalitarian” but as they are not a state anywhere they are not.  Neither is the mafia!

Here is an example of the type of reading and research that Manchild will refuse to participate in. The actual teachings and stated goals of Zawahiri and bin Laden will be of no interest.

If fact the written words of these two men are so completely contrary to what Manchild has learned, via the media, that he will say that THEY are the liars regarding what they have themselves said and written. He will quickly, with little forethought, accuse them both of lying because they do not see their cause the way he sees their cause.

The Al Qaeda Reader (Hardcover)
~ Raymond Ibrahim (Editor)

http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaeda-Reader-Raymond-Ibrahim/dp/038551655X

What do our enemies believe? What motivates their war against the West? What is their vision of the ideal Islamic society? Surprisingly, more than eight years after 9/11, there is very little understanding of these questions.

Despite the tendency to dismiss Islamic extremism as profoundly irrational, al-Qaeda is not without a coherent body of beliefs.  Like other totalitarian movements, the movement’s leaders have rationalized their brutality in a number of published treatises.  The Al Qaeda Reader gathers together the essential texts and documents that trace the origin, history, and evolution of the ideas of al-Qaeda founders Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden.

“This extraordinary collection of the key texts of the al-Qaeda movement—including incendiary materials never before translated into English—lays bare the minds, motives, messages, and ultimate goals of an enemy bent on total victory. Al-Qaeda’s chilling ideology calls for a relentless (fascistic) jihad against non-Muslim “infidels,” repudiates democracy in favor of Islamic law, stresses the importance of martyrdom, and mocks the notion of “moderate” Islam.”

DBM,

Before Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was eliminated his speeches, interviews and Fatwa’s could be found in many Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian and, before 2003, Iraqi State newspapers.Before Abdel Aziz Rantisi was eliminated his articles, speeches, press conferences and edicts were found the world over.

Contrary to you twice assuming that I deploy a wide net over the whole of Islam you seemed not to notice that I was deliberate in not including all of Gaza, or even the whole of Hamas, under a single umbrella. I wrote only of those I’ve studied myself.

What you refer to as “tenuous” ties (a common word used amongst the elite media) between Iraq and al Qaeda types I call notable. In fact the latest U.S., British and Saudi intelligence reports, released in the past 12 to 18 months, and available to the public, outlines numerous “contacts” and “cooperation” between Saddam’s Iraq and “al Qaeda”. What was not found in these latest reports were, and we need to be exact here, “operational ties”. In others words; while contact and cooperation are known to be numerous and mutually beneficial to both, they did NOT carryout “operations” together. Nonetheless this is a far cry from the “tenuous” and/or “no links found” refrain from those not actually paying attention to details but, rather, the media.

You write that I appeared upset that you didn’t’t respond as I wished to my questions. Not so at all. If you go back you’ll see that you didn’t address my questions at all. “Pull-the-trigger”? I do not consider you some sort of adversary and hope that you’ll not assume that posture yourself. I was merely attempting to stay on topic and, get to a point I thought important.

You write: “it seems that they (Saddam and al Qaeda) were never able to overcome the substantial obstacle that Hussein was a secular Arab leader while Al Qaeda felt that Islam be the central facet of any Arab state”.

Can you show me how you know this? Can you direct me toward an intelligence report, white paper or scholarly study which supports your understanding? Something other than what you’ve heard countless times in the elite media giving anyone with an opinion the chance to repeat that falsity so many times that it’s now become “common knowledge”? I would be interested to see anything of substance that you may add and make it part of my own overall understanding.

It seems you either don’t have the time, or the inclination, to follow-up on the reading I’ve suggested numerous times (example” the U.N. resolutions and weapons inspectors reports proves much of what I’ve written). But, if you would, pick up a copy of “The Al Qaeda Reader”. In this compilation you’ll find the accumulative writings of Dr. Zawahiri and Usama bin Laden. If you do find the time to read their respective teachings yourself you’ll better understand my use of the term “Islamo-Fascism”. In my use of the term there needs be no actual state to be fascistic. The mere desire or goal (as you yourself point out) is sufficient.

1:a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

I am aware of the goals of our self proclaimed enemies. I have listened to their grievances and collective tactics and teachings. In those I have carefully referred to they meet the very definition of fascistic.

Lastly: I appreciate an opportunity to make a point if you could address my previous questions concerning bin Laden.

But Ardee, there are so many ranters about who cannot articulate why or even what they think!  When someone is willing to back up his positions with argument it is well worth exploring and parrying the ideas rather than the man.

I find it hard to understand how people arrive at what I consider illogical positions so I have to listen when someone is willing to explain.

DBM, November 5 at 9:31 am

I am grateful that you are here to respond to one who apparently thinks overmuch of himself and his own opinions ( to him they are unassailable facts) and nothing at all of anyone else. I doubt, however , this person sees how you destroy his clowish positions, and with ever so polite response.

I am certain of one thing, he has not done anywhere near the “studying” he so pompously brays about.

I simply canot stomach the fool and cannot resist noting such.

Go Right,

If you wish to define “Fascism” or any other word differently from the dictionary, I guess that’s your perogative.  It does make communication a little less precise. 

No, you didn’t mention Hamas but you did tell me:

“I’ve read the teachings of Dr, Zawahiri, bin Laden, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha. I’ve read the charter of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. I’ve studied the teachings of the Islamic Dawa Party and Jaish Abu Bakr.”

Yassin and al-Rantissi were founders of Hamas ... where exactly did you read their teachings?

You asked “Ok. al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Is Usama Bin Laden a threat? If not? why not? If so what makes him dangerous? If he’s a threat today what are you prepared to do about it?” ... I answered with two paragraphs; one about Al Qaeda and one about Saddam.  Did you miss that update?  You seem upset that I didn’t respond as you wished so you could pull-the-trigger on your information regarding an Al Qaeda / Hussein connection. 

However, you dropped in all the Saddam/Al Qaeda link material in response to Ardee ... it is a little weak.  I’ve no doubt that there may have been meetings at some level, but it seems that they were never able to overcome the substantial obstacle that Hussein was a secular Arab leader while Al Qaeda felt that Islam be the central facet of any Arab state.  You might also have mentioned that Saddam made payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.  However, even the common enemy of the U.S. does not seem to have been enough to bring these two parties together.  The bottom line is that any ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam’s Iraq were tenuous at best but played up considerably in propaganda to justify an invasion ... an invasion that led to a debacle that may yet lead to the impoverishment of the richest nation on earth.  Very sad.

Manchild,

I note that you are unable to dispute even a single observation I’ve made on this subject.

I’ll assume you’ve never been made aware of the facts “behind the news” in regards to Hussein’s own religiosity and reliance on twisting the true teachings of Islam for his own protection and goals.

It seems MSNBC, the Democratic Underground and Micheal Moore have all ill served you.

May I suggest you actually pick up and read an intelligence report, watch and study actual congressional testimony and, most importantly, shy away from the 20 minute news cycle?

Go Right Young Man, November 4 at 11:58 am #

You never fail to impress me with your deep knowledge of all things, Manchild.

Thanks ever so much. I wish I could say that your silly distortions and half truths are equally “impressive”, but, sadly, as one of many here, I think, who see through your transparencies and half truths, I simply cannot return the compliment. Your efforts are sad in fact.

The Double Standard About Journalists’ Bias
By John Stossel

I made The New York Times last week. It even ran my picture. My mother would be proud.

Unfortunately, the story was critical. It said, “Critics have leaped on Mr. Stossel’s speaking engagements as the latest evidence of conservative bias on the part of Fox.”..........

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/04/the_double_standard_about_journalists_bias__99003.html

You never fail to impress me with your deep knowledge of all things, Manchild.

There were never 30,000-40,000 Fedayeen Saddam steeped in Islamic religiosity and loyal only to the Presidential Palace. The world didn’t see dozens of internal Iraqi photographs of Fedayeen draped in traditional religious insignia praying for martyrdom. The Fedayeen were not trained in religious madras’s in order to foster loyalty to Saddam Hussein. Saddam himself didn’t incessantly speak of Islam, the Mahdi and the five pillars of Islam. Saddam wasn’t quoted in Iraqi State run newspapers operated by Uday Hussein calling for “All Good Arab Brothers To Attack U.S. Interests Around The World”.

The United Nations was lying when it reported a non-aggression pact between Saddam’s Republican Guard and al Qaeda types. Abu Nidal didn’t actually live in a State subsidized apartment in the affluent Mansoor district of Baghdad. Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected al-Qaeda affiliate and chemical and biological weapons specialist, never traveled to Iraq.  Al-Zarqawi didn’t plan the October 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan or set up a camp in Ansar al-Islam’s territory to train terrorists in the use of chemical weapons. Al Zarqawi wasn’t known to travel with an Iraqi passport.

Documents found by the United Nations (Post Saddam) indicating that senior Iraqi and al-Qaeda leaders had met at least eight times in the 1990’s were nothing but wide spread neo-con lies.

You’re right, Manchild. History itself demands that your coveted media sources are far more reliable than Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian intelligence. Certainly better than U.N. Human Rights Commission studies. Believing our own eyes is useless next to MSNBC.

I remain impressed with how you willfully and carefully choose your information in order to keep to your beliefs.

DBM—“I’m not sure how not having read the writings of Osama Bin Laden or the Muslim Brotherhood precludes me from objecting to the catch-all phrase “Islamo-fascism”.  Is that how they refer to themselves?? Without having read them, I imagine not ... but look at what you’re saying…...”

(Smile)...or you could ask how I define fascism in lieu of telling me how I define it. Repeating your claim that my use of the term is mere rhetoric signals the end of listening. How do we hold a true discourse that way?

Why dismiss what I wrote and inject Hamas in my definition of Islamo-Fascism after I was clear on which individuals and groups I was referring to? I didn’t mention Hamas.

I twice posed a few questions regarding Usama bin Laden in order to set the table to make a point (Saddam/bin Laden). Twice now you’ve ignored the questions. Again, how do we hold a conversation that way?

Am I incorrect in believing your interest is more in you telling me what I may be saying or thinking over simply asking or listening?

In a recent post you asked to talk about Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. I was looking forward to that conversation.

Well said DBM:

How do or did I perceive Saddam as a threat?  A local thug, more worried about Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria than about the U.S.

Further he was an implacable foe of Islamist extremism and none were found in Iraq while he ruled there. That he ruled as a torturer and a murderer seems an internal problem for the citizenry of Iraq to change rather than a reason to invade that nation ,especially considering the mountain of lies concocted to sway opinion towards said invasion.

What we did was to simply remove the most stalwart foe of AlQaeda in that region. Puzzling…maybe.

My second para was getting back around to Fox ... if we’ve left that behind so be it!

I’m not sure how not having read the writings of Osama Bin Laden or the Muslim Brotherhood precludes me from objecting to the catch-all phrase “Islamo-fascism”.  Is that how they refer to themselves?? Without having read them, I imagine not ... but look at what you’re saying.  Neither Al Qaeda nor the Muslim Brotherhood is even a country let alone a fascist state.  Hamas sort of has a country (Gaza) but isn’t Fascist.  If you use the term “Islamo-fascism” you are juxtaposing Islam with Fascism.  If you are refering to a particular fascist state that is Islamic that might be different but to talk in general of “Islamo-Fascism” without even an example is rhetoric. 

Now, as to relative threats:

Al Qaeda and in a different way the Muslim Brotherhood have directly threatened the West.  Hamas, the Taliban and before them the PLO are local movements which only threaten the West because they live near oil we want and need.  Take away the oil and I think they would be no more relevant than Congolese militias.  One can assume that Al Qaeda would still be a threat no matter what the U.S. did.  I agree a very hard one to contain or destroy, hence the suggestion that exploring the roots of terrorism is a good idea.  I don’t anticipate that being easy or quick but I think solely military solutions (like “surges” in foreign countries) are naive if dealing with terrorism is the objective.

How do or did I perceive Saddam as a threat?  A local thug, more worried about Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria than about the U.S. ... a tool of the U.S. who was didn’t understand the role he was expected to play and over-stepped it.  The whole situation in that part of the world (from the U.S. foreign policy perspective) seems to be about Israel, Iran and Oil.  That Saddam had any genuine interest in attacking the U.S. seems implausible (illeducated and limited in vision though he was).  I expect he was much more interested in ensuring that his own people were subjugated and that Iran saw his armies as powerful enough to avoid.

Trying my best to keep us on topic.

How are you arguing against my use of the term Islamo-fascism if you’re unfamiliar with the individuals or movements that are our self described enemies? And who here is arguing that the teachings of someone such as Dr. Zawahiri effect an entire nation’s peoples or policy? It’s certainly not me. I wrote nothing of the kind.

Are you certain you’re not simply being contrary for the sake of it?

You asked to talk about Saddam and al Qeada. Your second paragraph has me baffled.

Is Usama Bin Laden a threat? If not? why not? If so what makes him dangerous? If he’s a threat today what are you prepared to do about it?

Keep our posts brief, frank and on topic?

Bad tangent on Katrina ... the only point was the honesty Geraldo showed under pressure contrasted with the party line at a later date.  Whether he had a correct assessment on either occasion is immaterial.

Now, the answer to your question is “No”.  I haven’t the “teachings” of those people you listed (some of whom I don’t even recognise).  I am genuinely impressed that you’ve taken the time to do so.  Most people would jump to conclusions without having done so and as I haven’t myself, I guess I’m one of those.  I think it is genuinely useful to read the writings of and to converse with people you disagree with.  Have you also read John Birch and Leo Strauss?  Would you characterise the entire United States as [fill in you loaded epithet here] based on their philosophies?  I am far from Anti-American because I may disagree with many foreign policy decisions the U.S. has taken and I have been no fan of the neo-conservative economic polices of every president since 1980.  But I see the U.S. in a much more complicated way.  I spent much of my life there and I’m very integrated with the country personall so that is easy.  I think it is harder to see the differences and comlexities of societies which are different from ourselves.  I would ask if you’ve ever read Robert Fisks ““The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East”?  An excellent resource from someone who has spent his whole working life in the region.

I heard an interesting talk the other day in which someone you would consider very “left” correctly, I think, said that the position of the Tea Bag protesters and Town Hall disrupters is entirely logically consistent.  Like the rest of us, these people have seen their lifestyle deteriorate.  2 generations ago, one person could support a middle class family with a decent job.  Then it started to take a full-time plus a part-time job and nowadays it is often if not usually 2 full-time jobs required to achieve the same standard of living.  With the erosion of savings, 401K’s and so forth even this is not proving to be enough.  They are pissed!  They should be!  There is the slight problem that they’ve been led to believe that other people like minorities and immigrants have taken their piece of the pie (through affimative action and illegal work undercutting jobs) aided and supported by “Liberals”.  On that I think they are incorrect but logically consistent.  To bring this full-circle:  That is Fox News’ primary audience!

DBM,

The term Fascism means different things to different people. We can find dozens of definitions today. Have you followed the teachings of those I’ve mentioned?

You write: “Where I see “starve the beast”, “make government small enough to drown in a bathtub”, “private is always better than government ... at anything”, I suspect you see fiscal restraint, common sense and sound policy.”

You mentioned Katrina to make a point. It’s not an issue I was remotely thinking about. I’m unclear how any of the above is germane to anything I’ve written.

My point was a simple one. I urge you to read the PDF file I shared. We can literally interchange that report on Andrew with that of Katrina. Events separated by several years and different presidencies. We can literally do the same with hurricane Hugo or the San Francisco earthquake. How is it possible to make the issue a referendum on a sitting president? Obviously it’s not.

Food for thought. As far back as 35 years the federal government, including FEMA, have advised people to fully expect to be on their own for the first 72 hours. Why is that? It seems clear to me that it’s an historic fact. It’s not the man in the Oval. It’s obviously an systemic problem. We should address that!

Ok. al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Is Usama Bin Laden a threat? If not? why not? If so what makes him dangerous? If he’s a threat today what are you prepared to do about it?

Keep our posts frank and brief?

There are plenty of states with Islamic majorities.  Plenty with religious fanatics.  Plenty with violent minorities.

I’m not sure I see a monolithic movement of “Fascism” in any of that ...

It’s just rhetoric.

fascism [(fash-iz-uhm)]

A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.

Note: Today, the term fascist is used loosely to refer to military dictatorships, as well as governments or individuals that profess racism and that act in an arbitrary, high-handed manner.

I’d rather not get into the debate about hurricanes.  That is symptomatic of another area of difference which we no doubt have but would have to debate at considerable length!  Where I see “starve the beast”, “make government small enough to drown in a bathtub”, “private is always better than government ... at anything”, I suspect you see fiscal restraint, common sense and sound policy.

Let’s talk Saddam and Al Qaida!

DBM,

Replace the phrase “Hurricane Andrew” with “Hurricane Katrina”. Or, if you like, do the same exorcise with “Hurricane Hugo” and/or “Hurricane Ike”. Makes no difference.

“The fury of Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Iniki, Hurricane Hugo, the Los Angeles Riots, and the San Francisco earthquake can not be equaled by the feelings some devastated disaster victims have towards our nation’s lead emergency management agency. Pointed criticism and tales of ineptitude, insensitively, and “foot-dragging” continue to plague the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and it’s leadership.

“One of the most basic problems, and most frequent criticisms of FEMA is that they aren’t prepared for those critical first, few, days after a major disaster occurs”, according to Clark Staten of the Chicago-based Emergency Response & Research Institute. “This was particularly true of Hurricane Andrew, where local emergency response agencies were unable to provide even the very rudimentary rescue/medical care services that were required”, Staten continued. “Unfortunately, people seem to have developed an attitude that FEMA and the U.S. Military can come and `rescue’ them within a moments’ notice…when that doesn’t happen they are disappointed, hurt, and angry”, the veteran emergency manager added. “

http://www.emergency.com/

250,000 people were left homeless.

“The evacuation of people from low-lying areas before Hurricane Andrew struck had been highly successful. During the first hundred hours after the storm, however, relief efforts proved inadequate. There were many reasons for this. A major storm had not hit South Florida since the mid-1960s, and an entire generation had grown up with no experience of hurricanes. In addition, the exceptional force of the storm and the fact that it covered an area of twenty-five to thirty miles, from downtown Miami south to Homestead, created special logistical problems.

Many of the problems that related to mounting the initial relief effort after the storm had to do with jurisdictional disputes and administrative incompetence. Metro Dade mayor Steve Clark failed to provide leadership. The relief efforts of volunteer agencies such as the American Red Cross were not coordinated with the efforts being made by the military. There were also questions over federal versus state and local jurisdiction. All these issues contributed to the confusion and lack of effective response in the first week after Andrew. “
http://www.upf.com/mkt/samples/provenzo.html

This PDF file is particularly enlightening when we consider when it was written.

[PDF]
University of Delaware Disaster Research Center PRELIMINARY PAPER ..http://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/19716/569/3/PP181.pdf

Conclusion: The notion that anyone, for any reason, would find blame in a small number of people, in this case the evil Bush White House, is pure and unadulterated balderdash.

I feel compelled to repeat myself here. Not only is this behavior disgusting partisan politics, it’s useless to us all.

DBM,

Oh Lord…LOL the usual refrain from, excuse me but, the Left, The Blame America First crowed. The United States as the global villain. On that we will never agree. I see only self-loathing in that view. It’s a view we will not be sharing.

Islamo-Fascism is not a catch phrase. I’ve read the teachings of Dr, Zawahiri, bin Laden, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha. I’ve read the charter of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. I’ve studied the teachings of the Islamic Dawa Party and Jaish Abu Bakr. You make a tremendous mistake in believing my position is an attack on Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is YOUR perception and you’ll not hear me if you keep it.

Now I will take you to task

Let me get this straight. After Hurricane Hugo. After Hurricane Andrew. You and others have a desire to blame a small handful of people for the complete breakdown of emergency services after the largest natural disaster in American history? You are somehow SURPRISED in the Local, State and Federal Governments response(s)? I find the logic quite ridiculous. That, my friend, is pure “heaping on” the people you desire to dislike. No matter how much or how often we here it, it’s simply ridiculous.

Here’s the thing. If you look up Andrew and Hugo you’ll find the exact same problems, the exact same criticisms, the exact same breakdown of services, although on a smaller scale, as we witnessed during and after Hurricane Katrina. The rest is short sighted media hyperbole turned common knowledge. In fact I find it quite disgusting and useless.

DBM,

I think it’s important to keep things in perspective. We obviously agree on some basic goals but differ in how we approach them.

From my perspective Saddam Hussein was one of the most demanding issues needing attention. Yes, particularly after Sept. 2001. No, it had nothing, whatsoever, to do with President Bush. I believed in the threat that was Saddam Hussein years before Bush ran for president. I do not believe President Clinton, the Congress, the United Nations, France, Germany, China, Russia, Britain, and others were lying.

I do not believe that “al Qaeda” is a singular entity that can be jailed or eliminated. And, as odd as it is to some, I do not believe, even after Sept. 2001, that al Qaeda was the more pressing danger to the globe. It is of the utmost importance to realize that “al Qaeda types” (there are many) operated in over 60 nations. Half of which supported Islamo-fascism against the West. The target was not, and is not today, Usama bin Laden.

Would you agree that our true differences lay in our basic threat assessments?

Again, my apologies for the confusion.

Well, no problem, let me address that one too as best I can!

I think there are times when sudden events strike that the shock and surprise strips away learned constructs and the “world views” that we’ve been discussing, leaving the essential humanity that is in almost all people.  9/11 was one of those moments.  The disgust that was felt so widely across the world would have made it very difficult for world leaders and regimes who had allowed or abetted terrorism to avoid changing course.  If these regimes were impervious to their own people, who as I’ve said were fully behind the U.S. and against terrorism, they would nonetheless have been subject to pressure from pretty much every other nation they dealt with, traded with and were allied to.  It was a massive opportunity.  It may not have produced results but I believe that sinking 1/100th of the funding and effort that has gone into war-making into a huge co-ordinated policing effort focused on the specific terrorists would have been well worth trying and could not have had worse results than the predictable disasters of invasion.  At the same time, and perhaps more far-fetched, a genuine effort to address the root causes of terrorism may also have been worthwhile.

A smaller scale analogy of the “window” familiar to Fox viewers was in the the aftermath of the Katrina hurricane.  I remember Geraldo (? the guy with the mustache) being truly moved and expressing dismay at the lack of emergency services in the face of the human disaster he was witnessing.  I also remember that he had to do penance for criticising a Republican administration’s efforts.  The next time there was a serious hurricane warning (about a year later) he was there again on the streets of New Orleans saying how the emergency services were ready this time and everything was like a well-oiled machine ... not that the hurricane ever hit!  That first period, when even the hard-liners were able to say that “the Emperor had no clothes” was a period when perhaps some things could have been fixed ... that one was missed too!

To be fair there is some personal opinion in that but I don’t think the opportunities can be wasted.

Lastly, let me take you to task a little bit!

You refer to “the problem of Islamo-fascism” ... please ... this is a stupid catch-phrase intended to demonise a religion.  Fascism is the control of government by corporations.  It would be more accurately applied to current day United States than to Islamic states or other countries whose main religion is Islam.  To me this is just a sloppy meaningless juxtaposition of two things (one of which is associated with the Axis powers of WWII - the last war people felt “good” about and sure they were on the right side of) with the intent of demonisation by association.

I apologize, DBM, that’s not what I meant. There was actually another paragraph written that somehow failed to post. Not sure how that happened. Thank you for the many links. I read them all.

I was speaking to your basic premise wherein the world was poised to work in concert to attack the problem of Islamo-fascism. The idea that the U.S. somehow “wasted” an opportunity. The theory that well founded and wide-spread sympathy would, if not for Bush, translate into long term tangible action.

I apologies again.

DBM, November 2 at 11:53 pm

I must thank you for the truth as opposed to what your adversary posts…..I had begun to post the noting of that candlelight march in Tehran in support of the USA after 9/11 but quickly realized that most of us know what was posted was a biased and untruthful opinion so I didn’t.

Perhaps the truth must be heard, but perhaps , in some cases, ignoring such propagandists is a far better truth…..still deciding.

A thoughtful discussion of the Egyptian reaction

http://conconflicts.ssrc.org/archives/mideast/shehata/

While Egypt has been a staunch U.S. ally and large recipient of aid since Sadat made his famous trip to Israel, this is also the country which gave birth to the Muslim Brotherhood (arguably the intellectual underpinning of much muslim extremism).

With respect to the Palestinian reaction to 9/11:

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=891&paper=1137

Are you seriously unaware of the enormous world reaction in 2001?  That didn’t make a massive impact on U.S. media coverage at the time?? 

Wow!  That’s media bias taken to new heights ...

The international reaction was immediate, unequivocal and nearly universal.  To get some contemporaneous news about it you can do a search on “9/11 world reaction” or similar and find lots of material from that period.  A very quick and superficial search came up with:

The predicatably positive official reactions from all world leaders ... but note also the resolve to DO something about terrorism this time.

http://www.september11news.com/InternationalReaction.htm

A fairly even handed account from Wikipedia:

“The attacks were denounced by mass media and governments worldwide. Across the globe, nations offered pro-American support and solidarity.[158] Leaders in most Middle Eastern countries, and Afghanistan, condemned the attacks. Iraq was a notable exception, with an immediate official statement that “the American cowboys are reaping the fruit of their crimes against humanity”.[159] Another publicized exception was the celebration of some Palestinians[160] and Serbians[citation needed].”

It is only fair to note of those three exceptions that two had been bombed recently by the U.S., one was suffering from both the bombing and terrible hardships due to sanctions (arguably more Iraqis died from the sanctions that month than died in the 9/11 attacks) and the other group were kept stateless or occupied (depending on how you look at it) by an American backed regime.

A very interesting case in point is the reaction by Iranians http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/

There has been a lot written on this subject from the Iranian point of view http://www.iranian.com/reaction.html  (these are American Iranians but my Persian isn’t that good!).
This one is typical:  http://www.iranian.com/Features/2001/September/World/index.html

It is sad to see where this got to in only a year (and before the Iraqi invasion):
http://www.iranian.com/AhmadSadri/2002/September/911/index.html
http://www.iranian.com/DariusKadivar/2002/September/911/index.html

With respect to the support and the outpouring of compassion, I could go on for pages and pages.  If you were in the U.S. in 2001 and were truly unaware of it that is an incredible failing of media coverage.  I’m still floored.

DBM,—“If you think about it, Shiite and Sunni were both horrified by 9/11.  Israelis and Palestinians were both horrified.  Western Europeans, Russians, the Chinese, Pakistanis, Indians ... for a brief moment there was near universal agreement that the violence should be stopped”.

Where do you get your evidence that the above is true? I’m not saying that it’s entirely wrong but, how do you know this theory, and it is just a theory, is correct?

One more point, Go Right.

You have a couple of times justified positions by saying something to the effect that (as in a recent comment) “90 nations” were [fill in the blank].  I have said “the U.S. [fill in the blank]”.

The U.S. has enormous leverage over other governments ecnomically and militarily.  With the Iraq invasion as a case in point, there was a “coalition of the willing” comprised of Britain, Australia and Spain (against the clear wishes of their own populations) and a number of smaller weaker countries strong-armed into compliance (also against the clear wishes of their own populations) who openly support the U.S. (with the clear support of the American population).

I do not consider the American people to be more violent or more stupid that the rest of the world.  I would suggest that they are less well-informed ... and that is what this whole conversation is about!

Settle my friends!  Let’s stick to the arguments.

I don’t have time to address every thread of conversation but as usual have a couple of observations to drop in the mix ...

A good link, Go Right, to the NY Times article about the growing dichotomy of news viewers.  I find this sort of reporting immensely frustrating!  Many reporters and papers are terrified of being accused of partisanship.  Hence any story has to be presented as “he said, she said” without addressing the facts or even attempting to portray the “truth”.  In this case, the writer had made an illogical leap that because the political affiliations of media consumers have become more pronounced that obviously both “sides” of the media are reporting in a similarly partisan way. 

Could it not be that every media outlet except Fox (the article lists CNN, MSNBC, Headline News, CNBC and even Comedy Central) is reporting a load of bogus lies and innuendo leaving only Fox reporting the truth?  That could be the reason that Republicans, who can’t stand the egregious bias of the rest of the media, go to Fox for facts and fair analysis.

It could, on the other hand, be the case the Fox is reporting a load of bogus lies and innuendo leaving everyone except their most loyal viewers to seek reality elsewhere.  A reasonable article would have mentioned the enormous amount of banging on about birth certificates, a muslim background, the spectacular credentials and undoubted leadership/management skills of Sarah Palin, the parade of paid Generals spouting Pentagon talking points, etc. on the Fox side and, if there was a balance to be had, a similar set of complete fabrications without any basis in fact by other outlets. (I’ll let you provide those Go Right ... )

You might believe that the middle ground portrayed by the NY Times article is closer to the “truth” ... that could be, but there is no valid logical argument in the article to make the point.

Second point (not quite so pertinent to the article):

Truth do tell, I don’t actually see where Mullah Omar offered to turn over Bin Laden in that article I linked.  What I do see is that under the pressure created by world revulsion at the 9/11 attacks he was taking steps to look at the problem seriously ... and at this stage it was a serious problem for him.  I am not convinced that 3 weeks is enough time to allow any government to do anything it was not already committed to doing (such as bailing out its major campaign contributors ... but that’s another story!).

I am also not on board with the idea of massive military invasions where there are other options.  IMHO, on the 12th of September 2001 the entire world was sympathetic, enraged and motivated to do something about terrorism.  There was an opportunity to put pressure on just about any government in the world to take part in a combined co-ordinated effort to subdue terrorist activities and possibly to address the root causes of terrorism in a meaningful way.  It is a great pity that the world missed that window of opportunity with the U.S. opting instead for using all that great equipment that the military industrial complex had been stockpiling for years and triggering an investment boom in the sector.  In the process, huge swathes of humanity have been completely alienated and antagonisms created or confirmed which will haunt us all for many many years.

If you think about it, Shiite and Sunni were both horrified by 9/11.  Israelis and Palestinians were both horrified.  Western Europeans, Russians, the Chinese, Pakistanis, Indians ... for a brief moment there was near universal agreement that the violence should be stopped.  Why then address the situation by escalating the violence 1,000/fold?

Peace Guys!  ... and give it some thought!

If Fox Is Partisan, It Is Not Alone

By JOHN HARWOOD
Published: November 1, 2009

The Obama White House’s decision to challenge Fox News appears driven equally by strategy and frustration. It is also a test case for politicians in both parties….

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/us/politics/02caucus.html?ref=todayspaper

Manchild,

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20091028_taliban_targets_un_workers_in_kabul/

After all your high minded self righteousness everyone here now understands what kind of person you are. Priceless! LMAO…........

Ask yourself why you’re the only one I speak to like I do. Literally the only one! There’s a reason for this, Manchild.

Go Right Young Man, November 1 at 10:18 am

Your penchant for ridiculing the truth makes you out to be pretty dumb actually. That DBM posted a link to proof that the offer from the Taliban was made prior to the invasion of Afghanistan slows your torrent of bull not one iota, so sad.

Your radical politics buys you only contempt, as does your penchant for failing to link to proofs of your assertions. I suspect that is because those links would only be found among the extremist sites, thus negating your credibility even further. Below zero in fact.

That the Taliban offer was not genuine cannot be proven simply because we ignored it. Invasion and destruction being so much more profitable after all.

DBM,

It’s your impression that roughly 90 nations in the world are all after one man? That’s never been my impression.

I’ve never suggested that Mullah Omar was in complete control of Afghanistan. Intelligence merely suggests Omar wished to exert control over (the foreigners) bin Laden and others.

I’m sure he said it if you say it’s so!

That is exactly what a leader in that sort of environment would say to try to solidify the impression of (and to some degree the truth of) his authority.

But it raises an interesting question:

Did the U.S. bomb Mullah Omar or an entire nation in the quest to get Osama Bin Laden?  If all power rested with Omar it seems a bit excessive.  It’s not like the Afghans voted for him is it?

DBM,

It seems the best intelligence (sourced by the Foreign Minister in 2001 and others, indicates that before and on Sept. 11 Usama bin Laden lived in Afghanistan “under the roof of his Host”, Mullah Omar, and all that that implies in Afghan culture.

It seems UBL was allowed to stay in the country as long as he remained under the “protection” of Omar.

Apparently Mullah Omar let bin Laden know “there can be only one ruler in Afghanistan”. Try Googling that quote. I think its a proper quote.

I’ll trust you on the extended process of asking for Bin Laden.  It certainly passes the logic test.

2 qualifications come to mind:

1) Although “The Taliban” is the most centralised power structure in Afghanistan (still, BTW, more than Karzai’s “government”!), it is a hodgepodge of different groups.  As in most semi-feudal societies, authority is absolute at the local level.  i.e. the particular leader harbouring Bin Laden (who you have to assume would be one who would side with him) would have to be convinced to act.  The Sept 11 attacks may have been sufficient to do this ... we’ll never know.

2) Luis Posada Carriles - 30+ years of waiting for extradition ... cause for military action?

DBM,

The term you were searching for was Loya Jorga in Afghanistan.

If look closely over the history I supplied on this you’ll see how the bin Laden issue -extradition- had been going on years before September 11. More than a year before Clinton left office it became an issue Russia and the United States worked closely on and in concert. It was an issue before the United Nations long before Sept. 11.

The demand for bin Laden to be turned over to the Americans was neither sudden nor solely reactionary. Although I well understand and recall how it appeared that way to the public at large.

The fact truly is that the Taliban had stated themselves numerous times their intentions never to hand bin Laden to anyone. The record on this is unmistakable and clear for all to see.

—-

I generally refrain from saying anything I can’t prove.

U.N. Weapons Inspectors reports and resolutions when you find the time.

Maybe look up the 1999 Inspectors report. What did these inspectors from different nations believe Iraq held and/or working on? From what you’ve already shared here I think you’ll be shocked.

Not really wanting to get involved in this exchange but a thought on the Afghan’s genuine willingness to hand over Obama in 2001:

I have not done a big search on Western media’s takes on what was going on as you have Go Right but I recall my thoughts at the time.  You may or may not have included this contemporaneous CNN report

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/17/afghan.pakistan/

However, I do remember hearing about the process that was going on in Afghanistan at the time.  The country’s religious lead, Omar, convened a formal council of leaders which I cannot recall the name of but which has equivalents in many indiginous tribal societies.  The New Zealand Maori have meeting called a Hui at which leaders meet and debate at some length about important issues.  There are customs which allow most parties to have a say and the intention is to reach a consensus.  Remember that these are societies in which power is distributed.  It is not usual for some central figure to have real authority over the whole.  Leaders emerge through their power to convince through argument and rhetoric.  Behind the scenes, no doubt, there are implied threats and imbalances of power ... “Realpolitik” if you will.

Now, remember also that Afghanistan is a primative country.  The lack of infrastructure that is one reason modern armies have been unable to subjugate it make it difficult for leaders to get to that central place to discuss.  It took time to convene the council.  Also remember that Bin Laden was a local hero after his role in expelling the Soviets from Afghanistan with substantial U.S. involvement.  To turn him over would be something like the Americans turning Lafeyette over to a foreign power in 1785.  It was also true that Bin Laden, who had taken responsibility for many terrorist attacks e.g. U.S. embassy in Kenya) denied responsibility for the September 11 attacks (see link above).  So, this was going to be a drawn out process and it was pretty reasonable that the Afghans asked for evidence against Bin Laden before they were willing to turn him over.

Now before you start saying that this was simply delaying and that there was no intention of doing anything, consider a modern extradition process.  The bombing of Afghanistan commenced on 7 October 2001.  Show me the Western democracy that could go through an extradition process in less than a month and actually hand over the person demanded.  Show me one which would do so when there had been no legal proceedings in the country demanding the extradition; no evidence produced in a court.  If you can show me a country like that, I would suggest that it is a country dangerously short of due process.

So, were the Afghans going to turn over Bin Laden?  Who knows, their process may not have led to that outcome without some evidence being produced which could be used in their council meetings.  They may have stood on their responsibility to a “guest” and a previous saviour of their country even if guilt had been demonstrated.  They may have acceded to the “Realpolitik” that the U.S. had the power to destroy them militarily.  No-one will ever know because the U.S. invasion cut proceedings short.

IMHO, it was a typically colonialist or imperial act which showed complete disregard for Afghan sovereignty.  Although I understood the American desire for revenge on somenoe (anyone) and I know the political pressures that the American leadership was under to act in this way, that was my reading in 2001 and it remains so today.

... you can imagine my opinion of the invasion of Iraq.

Manchild,

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20091028_taliban_targets_un_workers_in_kabul/

LOL…LMAO…LOL…wait, wait…..Let Me Catch My Breath…..Wait…LMAO….OK, OK…..wait…LOL…..OK…WHO’S THE LIAR TALKING OUT OF HIS SOUTH HOLE? LMAO…...

Of course the offer to hand over bin Laden was illegitimate because I claim it was. I claim it was illegitimate because the acting Foreign Minister of Afghanistan in 2001 has subsequently said it was never a serious offer.

In contrast to that you know I’m wrong on this because you read about the offer and saw it on television eight years ago while the Taliban was being pummeled by the United States. In the world you see the Taliban was being magnanimous while Bush remains the evil villain.

What a simple world you live in.

And you believe the Taliban’s offer to hand over bin Laden was legitimate…...LMAO

When you cease laughing perhaps yo umight consider that many around you are laughing too, but not with you at all.

So the Taliban’s offer was not genuine because…...you say so….Well done genius.

Yes, yes. All who fail to see things your way are demons, neo-cons and liars. 

And you believe the Taliban’s offer to hand over bin Laden was legitimate…...LMAO

Good God you’re worthless.

There is in fact one thing that sets FOX News apart from all other cable and broadcast “news” programing. FOX is singularly and outwardly conservative. The so-called Left seems to genuinely hate this.

Far right may continue to delude himself or attempt to delude others all he wishes. The real objections to Fox have nothing to do with their political leanings but everything to do with their inherent dishonesty. Fox portrays editorializing as straight news, thus fooling folks who think those opinions are actual facts. Sort of like the way this poster presents his OPINION of the reasons many here detest Fox as actual fact…How very Fox-like of you.

I took the pains to post a link to ten examples of this very thing, lies from Fox each one.

DBM,

After I sent my last reply I went back and read some of our posts in this thread. I didn’t have time to write but wish to make a couple brief observations. None of which is pointed at you. You’ve been more than kind and thought provoking.

There is in fact one thing that sets FOX News apart from all other cable and broadcast “news” programing. FOX is singularly and outwardly conservative. The so-called Left seems to genuinely hate this.

Truthdig leans “progressive”. At the same time the bulk of the posts here are filled with righteous indignation and true, authentic, hatred for those who fail to share their views. Ironic, yes? That it’s the most liberal and progressive that appear so judgmental and, well, closed to others points of view? Have you noticed how rampant the viciousness toward ANY conservative who dares speak a different language?

DBM,

While I like John Stewart a great deal I won’t be counting on his program for an unbiased opinion on the media…LOL. I did, however, love the piece he did on the subject.

I was under the impression that we had moved on from the FOX News issue. I already know how you feel about FOX. You were clear several times. If I could only get you to understand how roughly 200 million other Americans look on the remaining media. I passionately disagree with anyone who wishes to set FOX apart from others. That, to me, seems like an exercise in bias in and of itself.

So far you have been unable to give me an example of FOX News bias that is not equally met by NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and, most particularly, MSNBC (the 24hr Obama network).

Questions: Have you located and read any of the relevant U.N. resolutions on Iraq’s WMD programs? Most of them were voted unanimously. How would you explain members votes if, as you believe, nobody in the world believed Iraq held banned weapons and programs? How do you explain almost a decade of the United Nations Security Council going along with the Clinton lies regarding Iraq? Why would China, Russia, France, Germany and Britain, along with the others, go along with these U.S. Government lies?

It’s funny. Each time I ask some of these direct and poignant questions of the most ardent Bush critics the subject gets changed. It’s as if authentic honesty doesn’t matter. Not as long as Bush is the evil villain in the story line. Dare to point out how the whole of the United Nations made almost all the same claims and, POOF, end of subject.

Go Right ... my apologies for a couple of days of silence (got to earn a living!).

We seem to have few threads of conversation running at once so I’ll try to address the “one question” you pose in your last post:

“Are you now saying that the “Bush lies” are not Bush lies at all but rather U.S. Government (Clinton, 107th Congress, CIA, NSA, Depts. Def and State) lies dating back to at least the mid 90’s?

This seems contrary to your original point.”

That had me wondering what my original point was!  In my first post on this thread, I tried to make the point that Fox News tells more blatant lies than I see in other sources.  This led to a comparison of the sorts of lies Fox tells with other news outlets.

After some reference to “lots” and “doing for decades” you helpfully provided some examples of what you mean:

“Why can’t you convince me you served in the Air National Guard”? “Why are you part of a crime family”? “Why did you murder ten thousand black people in New Orleans”? “Why is Cheney running the government”? “Why is everyone in your administration criminals”? “Why did you bring down the Twin Towers and blow up the Pentagon”? “Why did you lie to take the world to war to enrich your friends and family”? “Why did you steal two elections?”

These would be interesting to work through one-by-one (did someone really say this? isn’t there quite a lot of truth in that? etc.) but the point remains is Fox different or does point-of-view make all the difference.  In this context, it is interesting to note Fox’s comments on this very topic (the WH comments about Fox).  I know Jon Stewart takes things out of context but in the segments he shows

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20091030_the_daily_show_for_fox_sake/?ln

there are certainly enough references to Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Mao’s China.  “Fascism”?  This is all part of a pattern of disinformation which I think is unique to Fox.  I don’t get MSNBC but I would be surprised if they had this level of name-calling and labelling by belaboured associations.

So, to answer your question directly, I think there was a tremendous amount of disinformation about Iraq all through Clinton era so as to justify continued sanctions and low-level military activity.  I have no idea how Fox reported it so I’m not sure if this is relevant to my opinion of them as a news outlet.

A few years ago Rocky Anderson the Mayor of (I think) Salt Lake City had a “debate” with Sean Hannity.  Rocky went first, outlined a number of points and requested that Hannity respond to them.  Hannity then stood up and just went for a character assassination.  The rest of the “debate” was content free and that is the way I hear Fox News.  There is so much Fox “News” time spent trying to construe how every bit of information could be used against someone or something ... usually something Democratic.

In hindsight of the last week, I still think the White House was right to single out Fox News as being particlarly biassed ... but I don’t think it was strategically sucessful. Fox don’t deserve all this priceless publicity!!

Who’s lying? you ask ... and I respond: “Fox is” ... well, they’re lying more obviously and are more partisan than any other TV news channel.

DBM,

I was interested in your answer to one question.

Are you now saying that the “Bush lies” are not Bush lies at all but rather U.S. Government (Clinton, 107th Congress, CIA, NSA, Depts. Def and State) lies dating back to at least the mid 90’s?

This seems contrary to your original point.

We could move on to the issue of terrorism if first we determine who was actually lying. Let me give you a couple more examples: In 2002, after eight years in the White House, after eight years of daily presidential briefings, Former Vice President Al Gore gave a speech in which he said, “Iraq does pose a serious threat’ and ‘Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Or when we consider that Sen. Edward Kennedy, one of the longest serving in the whole of the congress, after decades of the same intelligence the President of the United States receives as a ranking member of the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee, released a statement which stated: “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.“

So this begs the question. Who’s lying?

It seems so apropos to borrow from Thomas at this .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)!

oops! Sorry: bad HTML and a broken link:

Survey: WH v. Fox Flap Got As Much News Coverage As The Swine Flu Last Week
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/survey-wh-v-fox-flap-got-as-much-news-coverage-as-the-swine-flu-last-week.php

Geraldo At Large must’ve out-ranked the Axelrods’ “epilepsy” reprise on Sunday?

“‘No word whether the White House will backpedal on its pledge to keep Barack Obama from appearing on the News Corp. network until 2010,’ reports The Wrap.”
Report: ‘Truce’ reached in Fox News-White House war
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/truce-fox-newswhite-house/

Ratings Up During White House “War”
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/10/27/fox-news-ratings-up-during-white-house-war/31797

<b>Survey: WH v. Fox Flap Got As Much News Coverage As The Swine Flu Last Week<b>
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/survey-wh-v-fox-flap-got-as/ews

DBM,

You could begin your search for which nations believed Iraq held banned weapons by reading the relevant U. N. resolutions between 1992 and 2002.

If you begin there you’ll get a sense of how your focus seems to heavily be on the United States in relation to Iraq, WMD and Terrorism. Not the global view in which events took place.

To be quite honest I’m not sure what else I can add at this time. You appear to have an American-centric, media-centric view of history. Had you ever taken the time to read the U.N. Resolutions and weapons inspectors reports?

I ask this for a reason. You appear to be suggesting that the whole of the U.S. Congress, the whole of the United Nations, two U.S. Presidents and thousands of global intelligence reports were all lies. That’s a HUGE amount of people lying and, you have no evidence to support the theory.

Please, if you would, begin with the U.N. resolutions and inspectors reports. You can also find a great many declassified intelligence reports from around the globe. I fear if the information were to come from me you’ll quickly dismiss it.

DBM,

One question: Are you now saying that the “Bush lies” are not Bush lies at all but rather U.S. Government lies? This seems contrary to your original point.

One quick observation: We hold polar differences in our reading of history. I’ll need some time to digest your views.

Part 2

Al Qaeda was (and is) much harder to define and much more focused on America as its primary enemy.  Bin Laden had attacked U.S. embassies abroad, U.S. armed forces and had explicitly threatened to do more unless certain demands were met (I believe primarily withdrawal of U.S. forces from Arab lands - especially Saudi Arabia).  For this reason, I recall reading, in the traditional note Clinton left on Bush’s desk at the time of transition he emphasised the threat of Al Qaeda.  It is difficult to find contemporaneous accounts of this and there are plenty of versions of history.  However, this is typical from All Academic Research in 2005: 

“Any Clinton policy advice was suspect. Thus newness and hubris helped to cancel out any benefit of advice derived from the Clinton people. This, would in turn impact policy and affect the tragedy of September 11th. Former president Clinton recalls giving incoming President Bush advice concerning terrorism and security issues with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda at the top of the list. President Bush changed to subject from policy to the nature of the president’s job.”  http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/8/9/0/0/p89001_index.html

Leaving Clinton, you listed a whole lot of countries whose intelligence services had arrived at the same conclusions as the Bush administration.  As per the references I gave to the “OSP” I don’t think even the American intelligence services were convinced on this one.  I have tried searching on the specific agencies in other countries to see what advice they were giving.  MI5 (Britain) found too many holes in the evidence.  ASIO (Australia) was not a supporter.  The German BND probably has the most to answer for as the providers of the infamous “Curveball” misinformation (see http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/10/iraq.curveball/index.html and http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,542888,00.html for some disturbing reading).  What I can say is that there was plenty of doubt cast on many key elements of misinformation which led most of the world to not support the invasion.  A prime example is the claim that Iraq could strike western targets in “45 minutes” and the “smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud” assertion that Saddam had achieved the ability to deliver nuclear weapons through some of of missle system (and no a SCUD couldn’t do it).  I know this because I was one of those people who couldn’t see enough verifiable truth in the “intelligence”.

I am, however, looking forward to the promised demonstration of a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein ... this important argument in favour of invasion has never to my knowledge been supported by anything credible.  let’s see this evidence.